Re: Proposing Article

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Wallis,Richard
<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> No problem adding an acknowledgement of being informed by bibo sentence.
>
> Somewhere in the description section: “The discussions behind these
> proposals was informed from several sources with the Bibliographic Ontology
> (bibo) deserving specific mention."

Sounds good.

> I’m wondering how much our rationale for PublicationVolume would inform the
> proposal to the wider community or confuse them.

Under danbri's guidance, schema.org seems generally interested in
trying to maintain compatibility with existing ontologies, so I think
it would make the proposal stronger if we had a section like:

"""*Bibliographic Ontology mapping: In particular, the following
properties and classes should be considered equivalents
(owl:equivalentProperty / owl:equivalentClass):"

New:
* schema:issueNumber -> bibo:issue
* schema:issn -> bibo:issn, bibo:eissn (assuming that's valid...)
* schema:pageStart -> bibo:pageStart
* schema:pageEnd -> bibo:pageEnd
* schema:pagination -> bibo:pages
* schema:Periodical -> bibo:Periodical
* schema:PublicationIssue -> bibo:Issue (* volume property excepted)

Existing:
* schema:isbn -> bibo:isbn
* schema:CreativeWork -> bibo:Document (maybe?)
...
"""

... then it would make sense to have a rationale for why we
deliberately broke the mapping. Even if we don't include a partial
mapping in the proposal, people will eventually ask why we chose to do
what we did (even if it happens after the proposal has been accepted);
we might as well make that argument explicit.

> As to examples, as long as they are syntacticly correct with respect to our
> proposal, I believe the more the better.

Great, I'll start adding them then!

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 17:57:39 UTC